News

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DISCUSSES REGULATION OF ESPORTS IN EUROPE

27/09/2017

On September 6th 2017 in the European Parliament Sport Intergroup held a hearing entitled “The status of eSports in Europe: Need for a policy response”. The event  was attended by members of the main companies active in the field as well as by representatives of the industries involved in Esports.

 

The event was one of the first opportunities to approach  an issue concerning the necessity to create regulations on Esports at a European level, focusing on the development of framework from a legal and economic angle. In addition, it also aimed to identify the political issues related to this rapidly developing industry.

Esports, or Electronic Sports, are  forms of competitive activities, both amateur  and professional, that are facilitated by videogames. The games can be played by a single-player or multiple players while the competitions can be held  both ‘live’  involving the players who are physically present on the spot and online with other players all over the world.

The willingness to open a discussion on the Esports arises from the need to understand to what extent these “virtual” sports  and their players can be compared to the traditional ones , and to what degree the application of the regulations regarding the latter would be suitable in the area of Esports. At the moment, this area is self-regulated.

LGV, which has also been having clients from the companies and associations active in the video games industry, will follow the  developments of the discussion on Esports that is a topic of growing importance both at the European and national level.


LGV AVVOCATI WINS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN A CASE ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN TRADE MARKS

14/09/2017

In a recent decision the Supreme Court excluded the responsibility of a company – defended by LGV – accused of trade mark infringement and rejected the claim made by the opposing party requesting the ascertainment of the exclusive ownership of the disputed mark and assignment of the domain name registered by the defendant.

 

With this decision, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the principle according to which the evaluation of the risk of confusion must be carried out by the judge in the course of proceedings on the merits. The judge must ascertain, on one hand, the identity or similarity of the two signs and, on the other, the identity and similarity of the products. According to the Supreme Court, these evaluations cannot be considered independent from one another, in so far as they are both instruments which aid in identifying so-called “confusion among corporations”. The Court also stated that the inclusion of two products within the same class is not adequate for the purpose of proving their similarity just as, on the contrary, similarity cannot be excluded by the fact that two products are listed within different classes. It follows that the owner of the previously registered mark cannot per se forbid the use of the distinctive sign in any form – including that of the domain name – where there is no risk of confusion in relation to the products or services. In this case, the infringement of the mark by the petitioner was excluded in that the disputed mark relates to dissimilar products.

The judgment confirms the decisions given in the previous stages of the proceedings and also ruled out that the defendant had committed acts infringing the provisions on unfair competition, given that the existence of a risk of confusion cannot be presumed – not even in the case of a famous mark – on the sole basis of the existence of a risk of association. For positively proving the existence of a risk of confusion, evidence of such risk must be produced and attention given to the persons who share the same commercial needs and therefore turn to the products which can satisfy those needs.


LEASE AGREEMENTS: RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL UNLAWFUL WHETHER THE TENANT HAS NOT EXERCISED THE TERMINATION RIGHT

06/09/2017

As far concerns the early termination of the lease agreement exercised by the tenant, should the serious reasons occur before the expiration of the term granted to the tenant for exercising the termination of the lease agreement at the relevant legal expiration date without the tenant having terminated the lease agreement, such behavior, according to the good faith principle, must be interpreted as a waiver of the tenant to terminate the lease agreement for serious reasons for the future. Therefore, these reasons are considered as not serious since, otherwise, it would have been more reasonable to terminate the lease agreement at the expiration date.

 

The question (submitted for the first time to the Court) was whether or not the tenant may invoke, as a reason justifying the termination pursuant to art. 27, Law 392/1978, a certain circumstance occurred in a period before the last tacit renewal of the lease agreement. The answer is negative.

The Court has confirmed its consolidated case law, according to which the serious reasons justifying the termination of the tenant from the lease agreement must be objective, and caused by events which are unpredictable and extraneous to the will of the tenant, and which are subsequent to the execution of the lease agreement. At the same time the Court has introduced a new principle according to which when the serious reasons – which are subsequent to the execution of the agreement – have occurred in a period before the expiration of the term to exercise the termination right at the legal expiration date of the agreement without the tenant having exercised such right, this behavior, according to the good faith principle, must be interpreted as a waiver of the tenant to terminate the lease agreement for serious reasons for the future. These reasons can be considered as not serious since, otherwise, it would have been more reasonable to terminate the lease agreement at the expiration date. The Court is of the opinion that, should the parties decide to tacitly renew the lease agreement, this renewal implies the mutual convenience of both parties in carrying-on in the lease agreement despite the occurred and subsequent “serious reasons” which, therefore, cannot be anymore invoked by the tenant in order to early terminate the lease agreement.


THE EUROPEAN BANKING AUTHORITY (“EBA”) PUBLISHES ITS RECOMENDATIONS ON THE USE OF CLOUD OUTSOURCING SERVICES BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

10/08/2017

The consultation document is part of the project for the definition of a clear and safe regulatory framework in the field of outsourcing for European credit institutions. In particular, EBA aims at adopting recommendations in execution of the CEBS (“Committee of European Banking Supervisors”) guidelines on outsourcing of December 14, 2006 (for the complete text, see https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/104404/GL02OutsourcingGuidelines.pdf.pdf).

 

Here are the main contents of the EBA Recommendations:

  • Security of data: financial institutions, before outsourcing their services, should conduct a thorough risk assessment and should ensure that the confidentiality of the information is protected;
  • Location of data and processing: financial institutions should inform regulators of the country where the service will be performed, proposing – if necessary – a revision of the legislation on data processing. Special attention should be paid when outsourcing services concern extra UE Countries;
  • Audit: financial institutions should provide systems that allow themselves – and the regulators of the countries – full access to the business premises where the outsourcing service is performed, providing the possibility to analyse and verify the systems and devices used for providing the services outsourced;
  • Chain outsourcing: in the case of subcontract of the outsourced service, also the subcontractor shall be required to fully comply with the measures and recommendations described above;
  • Contingency planning: financial institutions shall provide well tested exit and emergency plans and make sure the outsourcing service provider is obliged to make an orderly transfer of the services so as to maintain business continuity.


THE ANTITRUST AUTHORITY TAKES A STAND ON INFLUENCER MARKETING

26/07/2017

The Antitrust Authority issued a press release last 24 July communicating that it had sent some moral suasion letters to operators who carry out online sponsorship via the technique known as influencer marketing. The Authority invited such persons to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Code.

 

The Antitrust Authority has declared that it carried out investigations concerning the sponsorship of products, an activity known as influencer marketing.

Such commercial practice involves publication on blogs, vlogs and other social media (such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, MySpace, and so on) by internet personalities having many followers (known as bloggers or influencers)  of images related to products that may be traced to a given brand without, however, the influencer expressing the advertising nature of such communication, in such a way that the followers are subjected to what is a true form of sponsorship of a product grounded on the private and personal experience of the influencer.

The first step taken by the Antitrust Authority appears to be that of encouraging both the influencer and the companies that own the sponsored trademarks to provide adequate information at the time of publication of the contents that would reveal the commercial nature of the communication (which would be the case both when product placement occurs upon payment as well as when the products are freely provided).

The request put forward with the moral suasion letters is that operators should conform to the general rules provided by the Consumer Code, according to which advertisements must be recognisable as such so that the commercial purpose of the communication is clearly perceived by the consumer. The Authority declared that with influencer marketing the promotional purpose will have to be made clear via the insertion of specific warnings which, in line with the communication procedures applied within social media, may for example consist of hashtags such as #advertising, #sponsored, #paidinsertion and #providedby followed by the name of the sponsored brand.